﻿<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <title>LXM 英语翻译竞赛参评译文</title>
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="article.css" />
</head>
<body>
    <div id="tip_area"><p id="tip_article">济宁医学院精神卫生学院英语翻译竞赛参评译文</p></div>
    <div id="article_wrapper">        
        <div class="article_title_area">            
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p class="author_tip">LXM 同学译文</p>
                <p class="article_title">媒体</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p class="author_tip">英文原文</p>
                <p class="article_title">Media</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p class="author_tip">W 老师修改的译文</p>
                <p class="article_title">媒体</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div id="first_paragraph" class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>鉴于人们主要从媒体获取他们的信息（广义的定义包括印刷报纸和杂志、广播、电视、互联网），在媒体的传播作用错误信息是值得探索的。我们已经提到，媒体有时难免报告不正确的信息，因为需要及时的新闻报道。然而，有一些其他系统性原因，媒体可能得到的东西是错误的。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>Given that people largely obtain their information from the media (broadly defined to include print newspapers and magazines, radio, TV, and the Internet), the media’s role in the dissemination of misinformation deserves to be explored. We have already mentioned that the media sometimes unavoidably report incorrect information because of the need for timely news coverage. There are, however, several other systemic reasons for why the media might get things wrong.</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>鉴于人们主要从媒体获取他们的信息（广义的定义包括印刷报纸和杂志、广播、电视、互联网），媒体传播错误信息的作用值得探索。我们已经提到，媒体有时难免报道不正确的信息，因为需要及时的新闻报道。然而，有一些其他系统性原因，造成媒体可能得到错误的东西。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>首先，媒体可以不经意地简化，歪曲，或过分夸大科学结果。科学是复杂的，和外行人，许多科学研究的细节是很难理解或边际利益。科学传播为了有效因此需要简化。任何过分简单化，然而，可以导致误解。例如，在一项研究由于气候变化预测未来全球灭绝发表在自然界中，广泛被新闻媒体报道，这使更多灾难性的后果似乎和时间少于实际投影（包，杰普森，&惠塔克，2005）。这些错误概念地科学的结果意味着科学家需要清楚明确的传达他们的研究结果，新闻稿需要精心构建，去避免被媒体误解（例如，Riesch&斯皮格尔霍尔特2011）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>First, the media can inadvertently oversimplify, misrepresent, or overdramatize scientific results. Science is complex, and for the layperson, the details of many scientific studies are difficult to understand or of marginal interest. Science communication therefore requires simplification in order to be effective. Any oversimplification, however, can lead to misunderstanding. For example, after a study forecasting future global extinctions as a result of climate change was published in Nature, it was widely misrepresented by news media reports, which made the consequences seem more catastrophic and the timescale shorter than actually projected (Ladle, Jepson, & Whittaker, 2005). These mischaracterizations of scientific results imply that scientists need to take care to communicate their results clearly and unambiguously, and that press releases need to be meticulously constructed to avoid misunderstandings by the media (e.g., Riesch & Spiegelhalter, 2011).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>首先，媒体可以不经意地简化、歪曲、或过分夸大科学结果。科学是复杂的，外行人对许多科学研究的细节难以理解或不感兴趣。因此,科学传播为了有效需要简化。然而，任何过分简化都可导致误解。例如，一项预测气候变化导致未来全球灭绝的研究在《自然》上发表后，被新闻媒体报道广泛歪曲，使得结果似乎比实际预测的更悲惨、时间表比实际预测的更短(Ladle，Jepson, & Whittaker, 2005)。这些对科学结果的错误描述，意味着科学家需要小心、清楚明确的传达他们的研究结果，新闻发布会需要精心安排以避免被媒体误解(例如，Riesch & Spiegelhalter，2011)。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>其次，在所有领域的报道中，记者通常旨在提出一个“平衡”地故事。在许多情况下，它确实是适当的听故事的两面；然而，如果媒体坚持新闻原则的“平衡”甚至当它是不必要的，结果可能是非常误导的（克拉克，2008）。例如，如果国家气象局发布灾害性天气警报为明天，没有人会或者应该对他们的邻居吉米地意见这将是一个晴天感兴趣。提供了充分的理由，一个报纸的天气预报依赖专家评估和排除下意见。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>Second, in all areas of reporting, journalists often aim to present a "balanced" story. In many instances, it is indeed appropriate to listen to both sides of a story; however, if media stick to journalistic principles of "balance" even when it is not warranted, the outcome can be highly misleading (Clarke, 2008). For example, if the national meteorological service issued a severe weather warning for tomorrow, no one would—or should—be interested in their neighbor Jimmy’s opinion that it will be a fine day. For good reasons, a newspaper’s weather forecast relies on expert assessment and excludes lay opinions.</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>其次，在所有领域的报道中，记者通常力求展现一个“平衡的”故事。在许多情况下，听听故事的两面确实是适当的；然而，如果媒体坚持新闻的“平衡”原则甚至当它是不必要时，结果可能是非常误导的（ Clark ，2008）。例如，如果国家气象局发布警告，明天天气恶劣，不应有人对邻居吉米说的明天会是一个好天感兴趣。因为报纸的天气预报应依据专家判断而不能听外行的意见。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>在某些热点的问题上，有证据表明媒体系统的过度扩张的“平衡”框架。例如，绝大多数（95%以上;安德雷格，普罗尔，哈罗德，与施耐德，2010；多兰&齐默尔曼，2009）的积极出版气候的科学家同意全球气候变暖是由于温室气体排放引起的通过人类的基本事实；然而，非专家的反向的意见是突出在媒体（boykoff& boykoff2004）。澳大利亚的主要电视频道最近出现一个自封的气候“专家”的多样化的资格包括署名权一本关于猫的手相书（Readfearn,2011）。 “专家”导致的问题，实际上是解决很久以前一个辩论的感知这种不对称的选择的相关科学文献。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>On certain hotly contested issues, there is evidence that the media have systematically overextended the "balance" frame. For example, the overwhelming majority (more than 95%; Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009) of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the fundamental facts that the globe is warming and that this warming is due to greenhouse-gas emissions caused by humans; yet the contrarian opinions of nonexperts are featured prominently in the media (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). A major Australian TV channel recently featured a self-styled climate "expert" whose diverse qualifications included authorship of a book on cat palmistry (Readfearn, 2011). This asymmetric choice of experts" leads to the perception of a debate about issues that were in fact resolved in the relevant scientific literature long ago.</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>在某些热点问题，有证据表明媒体经常过分扩大“平衡”框架。例如，绝大多数（95%以上；Anderegg, Prall,Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009）积极发表文章的气候科学家一致认可有关的基本事实，全球正在变暖，这种变暖源于人类引起的温室气体排放；然而，种种非专家的相反意见却在媒体上显著突出（boykoff & boykoff 2004）。澳大利亚的主要电视频道最近出现一个自封的气候“专家”，他的种种资历竟包括著述了一本关于猫手相的书（Readfearn,2011）。这种不对等的挑选“专家”，导致一些事实上在相关科学文献中早已解决的问题被认为存有争议。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>虽然这些系统问题对不同区段的大多数媒体来说是共享的，但是不管在时间还是网点问题仍有很大的不同。在美国，专家的声音一再表示报警在下降的“硬”的新闻报道，自1990年代以来的增长和耸人听闻的报道缺乏批判性的分析或深入的调查（如，班尼特，2003）。在2003年入侵伊拉克之后，美国媒体备受指责他们不支持布什政府的战前声称的关于伊拉克大规模杀伤性武器（例如，砷和Kamalipour,2004, Kamalipour和雪，2004；兰普顿与施托伊贝尔，2003，蒂芬，2009），虽然在他们的覆盖面精度网点之间有相当大的变化，显示错误信息的持久性调查研究。斯蒂芬.库尔和他的同事（如，高尔等人，2003）已经反复证明在不同人群中错误信息的信仰程度大大不同于首选的新闻媒体，向全国公共广播电台（其听众是至少根据错误信息的整体）从福克斯新闻(其观众是最误导在大多数问题上)运行沿一个连续的统一体。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>Although these systemic problems are shared to varying extents by most media outlets, the problems vary considerably both across time and among outlets. In the U.S., expert voices have repeatedly expressed alarm at the decline in "hard" news coverage since the 1990s and the growth of sensationalist coverage devoid of critical analysis or in-depth investigation (e.g., Bennett, 2003). After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the American media attracted much censure for their often uncritical endorsement of prewar claims by the Bush administration about Iraqi WMDs (e.g., Artz & Kamalipour, 2004, Kamalipour & Snow, 2004; Rampton & Stauber, 2003, Tiffen, 2009), although there was considerable variation among outlets in the accuracy of their coverage, as revealed by survey research into the persistence of misinformation. Stephen Kull and his colleagues (e.g., Kull et al., 2003) have repeatedly shown that the level of belief in misinformation among segments of the public varies dramatically according to preferred news outlets, running along a continuum from Fox News (whose viewers are the most misinformed on most issues) to National Public Radio (whose listeners are the least misinformed overall).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>虽然大多数媒体机构不同程度地拥有这些系统性问题，但在不同时间和不同机构，问题也显著不同。在美国，专家已一再警告，1990年代以来“硬”新闻报道在下降，缺乏批判性分析或深入调查的追求轰动效应的报道在增加（如，Bennett, 2003）。2003年入侵伊拉克之后，美国媒体因屡屡不加批判地认可战前布什政府关于伊拉克大规模杀伤性武器的断言而备受指责（例如，Artz & Kamalipour, 2004, Kamalipour & Snow, 2004; Rampton & Stauber, 2003, Tiffen, 2009)，当然，对错误信息的持续性进行调查研究显示，各媒体机构报道的准确性有显著不同。斯蒂芬.库尔和他的同事（如，Kull et al., 2003)已多次证明，不同人群依据所喜欢的新闻机构而表现出相信错误信息的程度显著不同，呈现为一个连续谱，从福克斯新闻（它的观众在多数问题上都是最受误导的）到国家公共电台（它的听众总体上是最不受误导的）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>        
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">互联网的作用。</span>互联网已经彻底改变了信息的可用性；但是，它也促进了错误信息的传播，因为他排除使用传统的“把关”机制，如专业编辑。特别是随着Web 2.0的发展，其中的互联网用户已经从被动的信息消费者积极在Twitter和YouTube或博客等网站上创建。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">The role of the Internet.</span> The Internet has revolutionized the availability of information; however, it has also facilitated the spread of misinformation because it obviates the use of conventional "gate-keeping" mechanisms, such as professional editors. This is particularly the case with the development of Web 2.0, whereby Internet users have moved from being passive consumers of information to actively creating content on Web sites such as Twitter and YouTube or blogs.</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">互联网的作用。</span>互联网已彻底改变了信息的可获取性；但是，它也促进了错误信息的传播，因其避开了传统的“把关”机制，如专业编辑。特别是随着Web 2.0的发展，其中的互联网用户已经从被动的消费信息转为在一些网站上积极创作内容，例如在争鸣网站（Twitter）和你的影视网站（YouTube）或博客上。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>人们使用新媒体，如博客（麦克拉肯，2011）,他们的消息来源报告说他们发现他们比传统的来源更公平，更可靠，更深入（T.J.约翰逊&凯耶，2004）。博客用户判断战争博客是新闻周围的冲突更可靠的信息来源伊拉克和阿富汗比传统媒体（T.J. 约翰逊&凯耶，2010）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>People who use new media, such as blogs (McCracken, 2011), to source their news report that they find them fairer, more credible, and more in-depth than traditional sources (T. J. Johnson & Kaye, 2004). Blog users judged war blogs to be more credible sources for news surrounding the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan than traditional media (T. J. Johnson & Kaye, 2010).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>使用新媒体，例如博客，获取消息的人（McCracken, 2011）报告说,他们发现新媒体比传统的消息来源更公平、更可靠、更深入（T. J. Johnson & Kaye, 2004）。博客用户认为，围绕伊拉克和阿富汗冲突，来自战争博客的消息比来自传统媒体的消息更可靠（T. J. Johnson & Kaye, 2010）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>一方面，互联网上的信息可以被高度误导，它正在逐步取代专家的建议。例如，越来越多的人从社交网络上得到的信息采购卫生保健。2009年，61%的美国成年人在线看健康信息（福克斯&琼斯，2009）.依靠互联网的一个来源的健康信息是充满了风险，因为它的可靠性是高度可变的。在条款中表现最差的是准确度是饮食网站：调查的50个网站匹配搜索的“减肥方法”显示，只有3提供了合理的饮食建议（英里，皮特里&钢，2000）。其他域票价更优惠：英文网站的一项调查显示，75%与抑郁症相关的网站是完全准确的，86%的与肥胖相关的网站部分准确（伯兰等人，2001）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>On the other hand, information on the Internet can be highly misleading, and it is progressively replacing expert advice. For example, people are increasingly sourcing health care information from social networks. In 2009, 61% of American adults looked online for health information (Fox & Jones, 2009). Relying on the Internet as a source of health information is fraught with risk because its reliability is highly variable. Among the worst performers in terms of accuracy are dietary Web sites: A survey of the first 50 Web sites matching the search term "weight loss diets" revealed that only 3 delivered sound dietary advice (Miles, Petrie, & Steel, 2000). Other domains fare more favorably: A survey of English-language Web sites revealed that 75% of sites on depression were completely accurate and that 86% of obesity-related Web sites were at least partially accurate (Berland et al., 2001).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>但是，互联网上的信息可以是高度误导的，而且正在逐渐取代专家的建议。例如，人们正在越来越多的从社交网获取保健信息。2009年，61%的美国成人在线查找健康信息（Fox & Jones, 2009）。依靠互联网作为健康信息来源充满了风险，因为它的可靠性极为不定。准确性方面表现最差的是各种饮食网站：一项调查显示，与检索词“减肥饮食”相匹配的前50个网站中，只有3个提供了合理的饮食建议（Miles, Petrie, & Steel, 2000）。其他领域结果好些：对英文网站的一项调查显示，75%有关抑郁的网站完全准确，86%与肥胖有关的网站至少部分准确（Berland et al，2001）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>在线视频是一个有效的和常用的方式传播信息（误报）-12亿人于2011年十月在线观看视频（兰德瓦克，2011）。153YouTube视频匹配搜索“接种疫苗”和“免疫”显示大约一半的视频没有明确支持免疫，抗细菌免疫视频信息经常反驳官方的参考材料（凯兰，汤姆林森&威尔逊，2007）。 YouTube视频关于甲型H1N1流感的调查显示的视频61.3%包含有用的有关疾病的信息，而23%是被误导的（潘迪，沛特尼，辛格，苏德，与辛格，2010）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>Online videos are an effective and popular means of disseminating information (and misinformation)—1.2 billion people viewed online videos in October 2011 (Radwanick, 2011). A survey of 153 YouTube videos matching the search terms "vaccination" and "immunization" revealed that approximately half of the videos were not explicitly supportive of immunization, and that the information in the anti-immunization videos often contradicted official reference material (Keelan, Pavri-Garcia, Tomlinson, & Wilson, 2007). A survey of YouTube videos about the H1N1 influenza pandemic revealed that 61.3% of the videos contained useful information about the disease, whereas 23% were misleading (Pandey, Patni, Singh, Sood, & Singh, 2010).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>在线视频是一个有效和流行的传播信息（和错误信息）方式 — 2011年十月有12亿人在线观看视频（Radwanick，2011）。一项调查显示，与检索词“疫苗接种”和“免疫接种”相匹配的153个你的影视网站的视频中，大约一半的视频没有明确支持免疫接种，抗免疫接种视频中的信息常常与官方的参考材料相矛盾（Keelan, Pavri-Garcia, Tomlinson, & Wilson, 2007）。调查你的影视网站中关于H1N1流感流行的视频显示，61.3%包含有用的有关疾病的信息，而23%是误导的（Pandey, Patni, Singh, Sood, & Singh, 2010）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>最后，有恶作剧的网站的唯一目的是传播错误信息。虽然这些网站可以有多个目标，包括模仿，更危险的网站冒充的是官方信息来源。例如，该网站martinlutherking.org（由whitepower创建组织）发布的信息，而马丁路德金假装是一个官方网站（Piper，2000）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>Finally, there are hoax Web sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate misinformation. Although these sites can have many objectives, including parody, the more dangerous sites pass themselves off as official sources of information. For instance, the site martinlutherking.org (created by a Whitepower organization) disseminates hateful information about Dr. Martin Luther King while pretending to be an official King Web site (Piper, 2000).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>最后，有一些恶作剧网站，其唯一目的是传播错误信息。虽然这些网站可以有多个目的，包括讽刺模仿，但更危险的网站是冒充官方信息来源。例如，martinlutherking.org网站（由白人优越组织创建）发布有关马丁路德金博士的可恶信息而又假装是金的官方网站（Piper，2000）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">增加媒体分馏的后果。</span>有线电视，电台和互联网的发展，使得人们发现新闻的来源，支持他们的现有观点更容易，这种现象被称为选择性接触（之前，2003）。当人们有更多的媒体选择，他们更偏向志同道合的媒体。这个尤其是互联网的出现导致了一种分离的信息为“回音室”的格局，即（政治）的博客，主要是连接到其他类似的劝说博客而不是那些对立的观点。超过一半的博客读者寻找博客，支持他们的观点，而只有22%的人寻找博客支持反对的观点，这种现象导致了创建“网络贫民窟”（约翰逊&张，2009）。这些网络贫民窟已经被确认为增加极化的原因之一政治话语（麦克莱特,2011;stroud,2010）。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">Consequences of increasing media fractionation.</span> The growth of cable TV, talk radio, and the Internet have made it easier for people to find news sources that support their existing views, a phenomenon known as selective exposure (Prior, 2003). When people have more media options to choose from, they are more biased toward like-minded media sources. The emergence of the Internet in particular has led to a fractionation of the information landscape into "echo chambers"—that is, (political) blogs that primarily link to other blogs of similar persuasion and not to those with opposing viewpoints. More than half of blog readers seek out blogs that support their views, whereas only 22% seek out blogs espousing opposing views, a phenomenon that has led to the creation of "cyber-ghettos" (T. J. Johnson, Bichard, & Zhang, 2009). These cyber-ghettos have been identified as one reason for the increasing polarization of political discourse (McCright, 2011; Stroud, 2010).</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p><span class="strong_text">媒体自然划分日渐增加所致的后果。</span>有线电视、脱口秀广播节目和互联网的发展，使人们找到支持自己目前观点的消息来源更加容易，这种现象称为选择性接触（Prior, 2003）。当人们有更多的媒体选择，他们更偏向志趣相投的媒体。特别是互联网的出现，导致信息格局自然分成各种“回音室”— 即各种（政治）博客主要与信念相似的其他博客联系，而不与观点相反的博客联系。超过一半的博客读者搜寻支持自己观点的博客，仅有22%的人搜寻支持相反观点的博客，这种现象导致产生了种种“网络社区”（T. J. Johnson, Bichard, & Zhang, 2009）。这些网络社区已被认为是政治话语日渐极端的一个原因（McCright, 2011; Stroud, 2010）。</p>
            </div>
        </div>
        <div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p>一个分离的信息景观的后果是“战略极端主义”在政治家的出现（格莱泽，ponzettto，&夏皮罗，2005）。尽管政治家们一直在争夺这个政治中心的注意，如果它获得更多的极端主义的战略是有效的票一个极端的政治光谱比它了中心或相反的。获得成功的一个前提条件定义为战略极端主义的选票的净增益分级媒体景观中的信息（或意见）可以选择性的引导到那些可能支持它，不得罪他的人。这种战略极端主义的长期影响，然而，在大的社会群体可能包括一个有害的和长时间的持久性的错误，特别是当这些信息泄漏出来的少数民族聚居区进入主流的网络。这种分离的信息是很重要的，正如我们在本文后，世界观的人民性起着纠正错误信息的重要的作用。</p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p>One consequence of a fractionated information landscape is the emergence of "strategic extremism" among politicians (Glaeser, Ponzetto, & Shapiro, 2005). Although politicians have traditionally vied for the attention of the political center, extremism can be strategically effective if it garners more votes at one extreme of the political spectrum than it loses in the center or the opposite end of the spectrum. A precondition for the success—defined as a net gain of votes—of strategic extremism is a fractionated media landscape in which information (or an opinion) can be selectively channeled to people who are likely to support it, without alienating others. The long-term effects of such strategic extremism, however, may well include a pernicious and prolonged persistence of misinformation in large segments of society, especially when such information leaks out of cyber-ghettos into the mainstream. This fractionation of the information landscape is important in that, as we show later in this article, worldview plays a major role in people’s resistance to corrections of misinformation.</p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p>信息格局被划分的一个后果是，政治家中间出现了“战略极端主义”（Glaeser, Ponzetto, & Shapiro, 2005）。虽然政治家一贯竞争成为关注的政治中心，如果在政治谱的一端获取的选票多于处在中间或另一端，极端主义在战略上就是有效的。战略极端主义成功（定义为选票纯增加）的一个前提是，自然划分的媒体格局能使信息（或观点）选择性的输入到可能的支持者中，而又不疏远其他人。然而，这种战略极端主义的长期影响很可能包括，错误信息在大的社会群体中长期持续、危害持续，特别是当这种信息从网络社区流入主流后。这种信息格局自然划分的重要性在于，就像我们在本文下面所示的，人们抗拒纠正错误信息，世界观起着重要作用。</p>
            </div>
        </div>        
        <div class="clear"></div>
        <!--<div class="paragraph">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p></p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p></p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p></p>
            </div>
        </div>-->

        <!--<div class="article_title_area">
            <div class="studentcn article">
                <p class="article_title"></p>
            </div>
            <div class="english article">
                <p class="article_title"></p>
            </div>
            <div class="teachercn article">
                <p class="article_title"></p>
            </div>
        </div>-->
    </div>

</body>
</html>
